Values Dissonance/Resonance Cleanup

This entry of Dragon Ball Super was written roughly before Base-Breaking Character and Broken Base got a huge rework due to the misuse by the users. I'm gonna offer a commentary.

• Values Dissonance:
  • When people first heard about Goku Black being referred to as Black Goku, some within the west saw it as a negative racial stereotype or that this version of Goku will be someone of African descent. In Japan, black usually means evil and has no connection to race, and is a common word use for wicked or dark characters. For the English localization, the word black is usually changed to dark or some variation of the word evil. Besides, the technical name is Goku Black, not Black Goku. In the end, the English dub kept the name fully intact, presumably because the [adult swim] audience wouldn't have a problem misusing or misinterpreting it (much like with Mr. Satan's name in uncut dubs) — to the point that it made a jab at the presumed controversy.
  Trunks: Hold your fire! This man isn't Black!
  • 'Is this really valid? Sure, this discusses that black usually means dark in Japan, but this entry appears to be written before the character properly debuted. Should this be kept?

  • Super Saiyan Rosé and the fact it gives Goku Black pink hair has been lambasted by fans. In Japan, however, pink has a completely different color symbolism and thus is less strongly associated with being feminine than it is in other cultures. It's seen as a masculine color with strong associations with cherry blossoms, their symbolism of young samurai who died in the prime of their life.

  • Unnecesary spoiler aside, I don't know if this entry is really valid.

  • Some western fans didn't find Roshi's dirty man antics funny in Episode 89, calling it in poor taste and outdated. In Japan, not only is the dirty old man humor common, Roshi has actually been toned down compared to how he acted in Dragon Ball. Indeed, the only reason Lunch was introduced to the series was because Goku and Krillin were tasked with kidnapping a woman for his pleasure, not to mention the numerous times he perved on a 16-year old Bulma. A bit of Grandfather Clause is throw in too, because, you know, being a Dirty Old Man is one of Master Roshi's most recognizable character traits.

  • I think this one is valid.

Edited by Tomodachi on Aug 1st 2020 at 7:55:22 AM

This entry was added to The Simpsons S 9 E 22 Trash Of The Titans after I deleted it years ago.

• Values Resonance: Besides its Green Aesop (which Word of God says was unintentional), the episode seems like a satire of the Tea Party when viewed today without context, as Homer spews angry rhetoric at a respected politician with little thought of how he would do better if elected, and after being elected, messes up so horribly everyone hates him. Ray Patterson's lines "Nobody wants to hear the nonsensical ravings of a loudmouthed malcontent!" and "the American people have never tolerated incompetence from its elected officials." hit harder than ever in light of how badly-received the Tea Party-dominated Congress has been, having the lowest all-time approval ratings throughout the 2010s, and how unpopular Donald Trump has been as a president.
  • This episode chastises the trend of style over substance, particularly in politics, as Homer only wins by insulting his opponent and making outlandish promises that he fails to see are absolutely impractical.

There's ROCEJ, lack of similarity, complaining about politics, and the fact mocking politics has been around long before the 2010s, that episode, or The Simpsons.

Also, since I deleted it years ago, would it be an Edit War if I deleted it again?

1 is shoehorned; having "Black" in a name doesn't make it automatically racist.

2 and 3 are fine, properly dealing with cross-cultural values dissonance.

Edit: That's a ROCEJ minefield. Feel free to re-remove it; you can link to this post in your edit reason.

Edited by RallyBot2 on Aug 1st 2020 at 2:49:40 PM

Also removed The Simpsons example from the VR page proper.

(Edit) Also commented out some of the Film section of Values Resonance that were not 20 years old. (I let a few of the ones that were made 18-19 years ago slide.) Some of the ZCEs were commented out as well.

Edited by Coolnut on Aug 4th 2020 at 5:28:11 AM

This is on Fillmore!:

• Values Dissonance: "The Unseen Reflection" has a girl named Terri of a long-running novel series sabotaging her and her friend's chances to win a fan contest. Her reason for this was because she'd read an advanced copy and had been spoiled on a plot development she didn't like. The episode treats her as an Anti-Villain at worst and her friend gives the novel's author a What the Hell, Hero? speech about "not keeping promises to fans" which actually gets an applause from everyone in the room. Terri is supposed to be seen as sympathetic and the author a smug jerk but considering how much attention has been given to the problems of entitled fans towards creators in recent times, it isn't too hard to see the author as right when she says, "it's just a book".

Considering the show was launched in 2002, it warrants cut solely bevause of that.

Edited by Magnimik on Aug 6th 2020 at 3:34:26 PM

I gues you could %% it.

Edited by GeneralGigan817 on Aug 6th 2020 at 6:40:25 AM

That just sounds like Unintentionally Unsympathetic. While the Internet has made entitled obnoxious fans more prominent, they still existed in the 2000's and were disliked then as well.

I mean, though, that's true of lots of Values Dissonance examples - even at the time/place they first came out, you could probably find people who found them offensive.

I think the waiting threshold should be 10 years. Society can still change a lot in that time frame.

I mean, we already made the waiting period for Values Dissonance/Values Resonance 20 years. It was voted up on the "No Recent Examples, Please" clean-up thread, and both are officially given that limit on No Recent Examples, Please! page.

Unless you want to argue the limit should be reduced to 10 years, in which case that should probably be taken to the NREP thread.

Some of these Futurama examples might need to be commented out since they haven't all passed the 20-year rule yet (the series in general is about 21 years old, but "Bend Her" came out in 2003, for example), but I want to run them here first to see if they even fit to begin with. Mostly the Values Resonance examples, which seem a bit too gushy.

• Values Dissonance: As funny (and even somewhat heartwarming) as it is, a lot of the gender bending and misogynistic jokes in "Bend Her" feel a lot crueler in an age more enlightened about trans issues. Probably a valid example in theory (though I feel like calling it funny and heartwarming kind of contradicts the point of the example), since trans issues have changed a lot in a short amount of time, but the episode isn't 20 years old yet.
• Values Resonance
  • Fry is very respectful towards women in general. While he does feel sad when Leela refuses romantic dates with him, Fry still accepts it and is otherwise a very good platonic friend towards her even outside of work (he also doesn't ask as frequently as some fans have assumed, so it's not like he forgets and has to relearn the same moral about entitlement in every episode). He also always treats Amy as an equal, whether they are on platonic or romantic terms, and the two are shown to get along very well on the basis of similar personalities. Compare Zapp Brannigan, who treats Leela's rejection as a challenge and is clearly in the wrong for doing so. Fry is better than that, which makes Leela eventually returning his feelings much more believable compared to the majority of stories that end with the underdog boy getting the girl. Billy West even said that he played Fry as "a gentleman." Not quite sure about this. Fry can be quite kind, but there's still a good amount of gags where he says Innocently Insensitive things about Leela. I swear that some of Fry's behavior towards Leela used to be listed on Values Dissonance, which isn't quite true either. It's kind of a mixed bag, Depending on the Writer.]]
  • Leela herself, despite being conceived as the stereotypical "hot alien babe," is incredibly feminist. She's never treated differently for being as autonomous, abrasive, sexually active, selfish or even stupid as her male peers, nor are any of her displays of femininity seen as weak (and even when another character does joke about it, they're explicitly in the wrong). She hardly even gets any Male Gaze! And while she may be an Action Girl, she's not invincible, getting visibly winded or hurt in several of her fight scenes (She still never looks any worse for wear, but that's probably just because it's easier to animate). All while being one of the funniest characters in the show. This feels like a low bar. I love Leela, she's a great female character for sure, but there are several instances of her getting Male Gaze, her femininity or lack thereof is played as a straight-up joke sometimes, and the entry even says she still falls victim to Beauty Is Never Tarnished. "Female character isn't basically a sexy lamp" feels like too low a bar for Values Resonance.
  • Most of the jokes involving not-so-conventionally-attractive people showing off a lot of skin are depicted with such nonchalance that they come off as somewhat body-positive today. This is a definite cut because I can't think of a single joke about "not-so-conventionally-attractive people" showing skin that wasn't played as a joke. The show made fun of the naked bodies of old people, fat people, and aliens.

Edited by mightymewtron on Aug 9th 2020 at 10:23:24 AM

The Values Resonance examples are garbage (they're basically giving Fry credit for not being a sexual harasser and Leela for being an actual character, which shouldn't be an issue in a show from the 2000s, and the third one feels flat-out incorrect). The Values Dissonance one has more merit, but still fails the time requirement.

(EDIT: Also, I feel the entry somewhat oversells Fry as a relationship role model. Whatever it did well (and I'm a massive fan of Futurama), in my mind, the show ended up falling into a Dogged Nice Guy plot where Fry and Leela are destined to be together, she just doesn't know it yet, with the inevitable side order of "isn't Leela stupid for dating men who are obviously awful, when her perfect match is right there?" And of course Fry is more respectful than the lecherous Jerk Jock Zapp: that's not some sort of groundbreaking progressive message, it's the core of the "underdog gets the girl" male fantasy.)

Edited by DoktorvonEurotrash on Aug 10th 2020 at 1:54:02 AM

That's the problem with having such a strict and such a long time requirement. That looks like a clear cut example of Values Dissonance, on an issue where what's considered acceptable has changed in a very short amount of time.

Edited by TheMountainKing on Aug 10th 2020 at 4:57:06 AM

Interestingly, Fry's behavior used to be listed as Dissonance. The history of Values Dissonance and Values Resonance examples on this page seems to be pretty erratic. The Leela example had been deleted previously and subsequently re-added.

Edited by mightymewtron on Aug 10th 2020 at 5:16:07 AM

Wrong thread.

Edited by PlasmaPower on Aug 10th 2020 at 9:59:37 AM

Is this the appropriate place to bring a questionable example of Fair for Its Day?

Yes.

Okay. From Steven Universe:

• Fair for Its Day: The series constant use of metaphors for LGBT topics might seem insensitive to modern viewers, but this show was one of the first kid's shows to deal with such subject matter, paving the way for more explicit references in the modern day.

I don't think characterizing the shows LGBT characters as metaphors is accurate, but regardless, applying terms like "to modern viewers" to a show that premiered only five years ago and concluded this year seems like jumping the gun. Cut?

Edited by TheMountainKing on Aug 10th 2020 at 9:08:19 AM

Fair for Its Day falls under No Recent Examples, Please! and also has a 20-year waiting period, so it should be cut on principal.

I think it's because some people complain that most of its explicit LGBTQ+ relationships are between sexless aliens rather than humans. Still might be a bit much to call them metaphors, though. But yeah, it should probably go, it's way too recent.

I mean, yeah, Discount Lesbians is a thing, but there are cases of LGBT characters who are humans, or who don't realize the alien characters are aliens (Mystery Girl doesn't really realize Pearl is an alien and is just attracted to her as a woman, people who don't realize Stevonnie is a fusion still refer to them with "they/them" pronouns and people of both genders are shown to be attracted to them, and Steven Universe: Future has a canon nonbinary character in a relationship). Plus, it's hard to call Fair for Its Day about a show that came out only seven years ago, and is still more explicit about its LGBT themes than some other shows that have human characters.

Edited by mightymewtron on Aug 10th 2020 at 9:27:48 AM

I get the Discount Lesbians thing, but so don't think that means that, for example, Ruby’s and Sapphire are only "metaphorically" gay. They are treated as women in pretty much every way (female voice actors, feminine pronouns, etc.). Them being a gay couple is the surface reading, you have to know more about the show's lore to realize that they "technically" aren't, so saying the queerness is "hidden behind metaphors" doesn't make sense.

Edited by TheMountainKing on Aug 10th 2020 at 10:20:36 AM

Oh absolutely. The oppression they face is a metaphor for homophobia, but they're still a gay couple on a surface level too, and the entry for the show on Discount Lesbians even notes this. It's hard to claim Fair for Its Day when a) it's bringing up criticisms that were made while the show was airing, and b) it's still a more in-depth look at LGBT dynamics that many kids' shows that came after it that featured gay human characters. That's not even just me gushing, it's just so clearly part of the show's theme.

This is on Lilo & Stitch (2002):

Values Dissonance: Minor case. By The New '10s, Lilo hiding in the dryer early in the film can actually cause cases of Adult Fear in older viewers, due to an uptick of reports of young children dying doing just that. This was noticeable enough even back when the film first released that the UK forced Disney to have the scene edited so that she was sitting under a large accent table and using an old pizza box as a "lid" to hide herself, with Disney+ years later using that edit for their version of the film, much to the confusion of those who either grew up with the original theatrical cut of the movie or hadn't heard the stories involving dryer-related deaths.

Edited by fragglelover on Aug 11th 2020 at 7:24:06 AM